Right of Preemption

Introduction

The r ight of Preem pt ion also known as " Shufaa" is a r ight which the owner of an

im m ovable property possesses to acquire by purchase another im m ovable

property which has been sold to another person.

Basically this r ight is available to one so that a stranger is not introduced in

neighbor or the fam ily which m ay cause a hindrance to ones privacy.

I n this article i am dealing with what kind of this r ight of Preem ption is?

Whether it is a statutory r ight or a custom ary r ight? Whether the law recognizes

it ? When did this r ight originate? What is the nature of this r ight and what is it s

object? Whether such r ight is beneficial or not?

Apart from this who can claim this r ight? What are the form alit ies required and

when this r ight vanishes? The different opinions of Courts and controversy

regarding it .

ORI GI N OF PRE- EMPTI ON

The history of preem pt ion in I ndia has been given by Sir John Edge in Digam

har Singh v. Ahm ad Said Khan.

Pre- em pt ion in village com m unities in Brit ish I ndia had it s origin in the Moham m

edan law as to

pr ec-oeumr spet

ioonf , t aimndewcuasst oampps aor ef nptrlyeeumnpktni onw n rienwI nudpiaobr

ewfoerree tahdeopt itmede aomf tohne Mvuillgahael

cr

uolmerms.unI

nit iet hse. I

n

som e cases the sharers in a villa e adopted or followed the rules of the Moham m

edan law of the preem pt ion, and in such cases the custom of the villa e follows

the rules of the Moham m edan law of pre- em pt ion. I n other cases, where custom

s of preem pt ion exists, each villa e com m unity has a custom of preem pt ion

which varies from the Moham m edan law of preem pt ion and is peculiar to the

villa e in it s provisions and it s incidents. A custom of preem ption was doubtless

in all cases the result of agreem ent am ongst the share- holders of the particular

villa e, and m ay have been adopted in m odern t im es and in villa es which

were first constituted in m odern t im es. Ri ht o

preem pt ion has in som e provinces been given by Acts of the I ndian

Legislature. Right of pre- em pt ion has also been created by contract between

the sharers in a village. But in all cases the object is as far as possible to prevent

st rangers to a village from becom ing sharers in the village. Right of preem pt ion

when they exist are valuable r ights, and they depend upon a custom or upon a

contract, the custom or the contract, as the case m ay be, m ust, if disputed, be proved.1

N ATURE OF PRE- EMPTI ON

Mahm ood J. observes in Gobind Dayal's cases :

The law of pre- em pt ion is essentially a part of Muham m adan in j

urisprudence. I t was introduced into I ndian by Muham m adan Judges who

were bound to adm inister the Muham m adan law. Under their adm

inistration it becam e, and rem ained for centuries, the com m on law of the

country, and was applied universally both to Muham m adans and Hindus,

because in this respect the Muham m adan law m akes no distinction between

persons of different races or creeds. " A Musalm an and a Zim m ee being

equally affected by principles on which shafa or r ight of pre- em pt ion is

established, and equally concerned in it s operation, are therefore on an

equal footing in all cases regarding the privilege of shafa." ( Ham ilt

on's Hedaya, vol. I I I , p.592.) What was the effect of this? I n course of t

im e, preem pt ion becam e adopted by the Hindus as a custom .2

The law of pre- em pt ion is based clearly upon the texts of I slam ic law, and while

there seem to foreign elem ent in it ,3 it is a well- established doctrine in I ndia. I t

was adopted by I slam , in general, to prevent the int roduction of a stranger am ong

co- sharers and neighbours likely to cause both inconvenience and vexation.4 I n

Govind Dayal v. I nayatullah, Mahm ood, j . defined pre- em pt ion ( shufa) as :

A r ight which the owner of certain im m ovable property possess, as

such, for the quiet enj oym ent of that im m ovable property, to obtain, in

substitution for the buyer, proprietary possession of certain other im m

ovable property, not his own, on such term s as those on which such lat ter

im m ovable property is sold to other person.5

Three things are, therefore, requisite: ( i) the pre- em ptor m ust be the owner of

im m ovable property; ( ii) there m ust be sale of certain property not his own; ( iii)

the pre- em ptor m ust stand in a certain relationship to the vendor in respect of the

property sold. I f these conditions are satisfied, he has the r ight to be substitute for

the purchaser.

The free I ndia found that the law of preem pt ion prevailed in various parts of the

country. I n som e parts it existed as part of the Muslim personal law, in other

parts it was based on custom , which st ill in som e other parts, it existed under

statutes, and am ong som e people it had com e into existence by contract. Thus, the

law of preem pt ion has the following four sources :

(i) ) I n the greater part of the country it existed am ong the Muslim s as

part of their personal law, i.e., where the law of pre- em pt ion is neither

territorial nor custom ary it is applicable as between Muslim s as part of their

personal law.6

(ii) ) I t existed in certain parts of the country under statutes. Thus, in Punj

ab it existed under the Punjab Pre- em pt ion Act, 1915, in Agra under the

Agra Pre- em pt ion Act, 1922, and in Oudh under the Oudh Laws Act,

1876. I n these areas the statutory law of preem pt ion applies to both

Muslim s and non- Muslim s, and the Muslim s law of pre- em pt ion does

not apply even to Muslim s. ( This should be read subj ect to the saving

contained in the Agra Pre- em pt ion Act under which it is laid down that the

Muslim law of pre- em pt ion will apply where the vendor and the pre- em

ptor are both Muslim s) .

(iii) ) I n Bihar, Sylhet, and certain parts of Gujarat ( such a Surat,

Broach of Godhra), the r ight of pre- em pt ion is recognized by custom am

ong Hindus who were either dom iciled there or were natives of these

parts. I n these areas it was the Muslim law of pre- em pt ion which applies

to Hindus except in so far as it was m odified by custom .7 Where pre- em pt

ion

is based on custom it is part of lex loci,8 and is enforceable irrespective of the

religions of

the parties concerned.

(iv) ) Am ong som e people it cam e into existence by contract. The r ight

of pre- em pt ion was created by contract am ong the sharers in a village.9

For instance, a Hindu vendee and a Muslim vendor m ay agree that the

Muslim law of pre- em pt ion which applies to the vendor and his sharers

would also apply the vendee.

The question whether the r ight of pre- em pt ion is violative of Article 19( 1) ( b) of

the Constitution of I ndia has com e up before the Suprem e court in two cases,10

in one the statutory r ight of pre- em pt ion and in another the custom ary r ight

of pre- em pt ion was challenged. Both cases related to the r ight of pre- em pt ion

on the basis of vicinage. I n both cases, the Suprem e Court cam e to the

conclusion that the r ight of pre- em pt ion on the basis of vicinage im posed

unnecessary restrictions on the vendor's r ight to sell the property to a purchaser of

his choice, and, therefore, was unconstitutional.

I n Avadh Behari v. Gujadhar,11 the Suprem e Court gave effect to the r ight of

pre- em pt ion based on co- ownership in j oint property. However, in this case the

constitutional validity of the law of pre- em pt ion was not challenged before the

Suprem e Court. I n fact, the constitutional validity could not have been challenged

in this case, as it was a pre- constitutional case, where the leave to appeal had

already been granted by the Privy Council. After the com ing into the force of the

Constitution of I ndia, the appeal was has heard by the Suprem e Court. Thus,

from this case, no inference can be drawn that the Suprem e Court had upheld the

Constitutional validity of the law of pre- em pt ion based on co- ownership.

I n Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh the court sum m arised rules of pre- em pt ion in I ndia :

(1) ) The r ight of pre- em pt ion is not a r ight to the thing sold but a r ight to the

offer of a thing

about to be sold. This r ight is called the prim ary or inherent r ight.

(2) ) The pre- em ptor has a secondary r ight or a rem edial r ight to follow the thing

sold.

(3) ) I t is a r ight of substitution but not of re- purchase, i. e., the pre- em

ptor takes the entire bargain and step into the shoes of the original vendee.

(4) ) I t is a r ight to acquire the whole of the property sold and not a

share of the property sold.

(5) ) Preference being the essence of the r ight, the plaintiff m ust have a

superior r ight to that of the vendee or the person substituted in his place.

(6) ) The r ight being a very weak r ight, it can be defeated by all legit im

ate m ethods, such as the vendee allowing the claim ant of a superior or

equal r ight being substituted in his place. 12

Classificat ion Of Pre- Em pt ors Or W ho Can Pre- Em pt

The r ight of pre- em pt ion m ay be classified on the basis of the persons who can claim the r

ight.

(i) ) The Shafi Sharik or co- owner in the property. This is a r ight f pre- em

pt ion of a co- sharer of the property. Obviously, no r ight of pre- em pt ion

arises on the sale of leasehold.13 The r ight of pre- em pt ion can be claim

ed only by a full owner.

(ii) ) The Shafi Sharik or a participator in the appendages. This is a r ight of

pre- em pt ion of a participator in im m unities and appendages, such as a r

ight of way, or r ight to discharge water. 14 On the basis that that the

branches of his t ree project over the land of a neighbor of the owner of the

t ree cannot claim the r ight of pre- em pt ion as Shafii Khalit on the sale of

that land. 15 Sim ilarly, the m ere fact that the owners of lands have the

any r ight to draw water from governm ent water- course does not give

them any r ight of pre- em pt ion. The r ight of pre- em pt ion as Shafii

Khalit cannot be claim ed as Shafii Khalit cannot be claim ed on the basis of

easem ent of light and air. The r ight of pre- em pt ion as shafii khalit exists

only in respect of r ight of way and r ight to water and in respect of no other

easem ent. 16

(iii) ) The Shafi- i- j ar or owner of an adjoining property. This is a r ight of

pre- em pt ion on the basis of nighbourhood, or the r ight of the owner of the

adj oining im m oveable property. This r ight does not belong to a tenant or

to a person, who is in possession of property without having ownership in

it . Thus, a wakif of m utawali has no r ight of pre- em pt ion on the basis of

shafi- i- j ar, since the t it le of property does not vest in either of them but

in God,17 and

God, too, has no r ight of pre- em pt ion. Even before Suprem e Court decision18

holding the

r ight of pre- em pt ion on the basis of vicinage as unconstitutional, the r ight of pre-

em pt ion of

a shafi- i- j ar did not extend to larger estates, such as zam indars and j

agirs, but was restricted to houses, gardens and sm all parcels of land.

Under the Hanafi law, the pre- em ptor of the sam e class has the r ight to pre- em pt

in equal proportions, even though they own unequal sharers. But under the Shafii

law, even the r ight of pre- em pt ion of the sam e class is in proportion to their

share in the property. Am ong the pre- em pt ion of the sam e class, no dist inction

is m ade.

Nearness m ay be recognized by custom s.19

The r ight of pre- em pt ion arises from full ownership,20 and it is im m aterial that

a pre- em ptor is not in possession of his property. I t is ownership and not

possession which gives r ise to the r ight of pre- em pt ion. There is no r ight of pre-

em pt ion on the sale of leasehold, whether of house or land.

W HEN DOES THE RI GHT OF PRE- EMPTI ON ARI SE

The r ight of pre- em pt ion arises only in two types of t ransfer of property, viz.,

sale and exchange. I t does not arise in respect of t ransfer of any other type. When

it arises in respect of sale, then sale m ust be com plete, bona fide and valid. 21 the

Allahabad High Court held that the t ransfer of property by a husband to his

wife in lieu of dower is sale and, therefore, the r ight of pre- em pt ion

arises22 , while the Oudh Chief Courts has held that it is a hiba- bil- iwaz, and

therefore, the r ight of pre- em pt ion does not exist 23 . Sim ilarly, the r ight of pre-

em pt ion arises in respect of exchange when it is com plete, bona fide and valid.

Thus, the r ight of pre- em pt ion will not arise in respect of

an exchange of property between two persons, if the exchange is subject to an

option at any t im e during their life t im e.

The r ight of pre- em pt ion does not exist in respect of Gift, Sadaqah, Wakf, I

nheritance, Bequest or Lease24 . I t does not apply to a m ortgage also, but if a m

ortgage is foreclosed, then the r ight of pre- em pt ion arises. The r ight of pre- em

pt ion does not arise in respect of a lease even when it in perpetuity.

I t is established rule that the r ight of pre- em pt ion arises out of a valid and com

pleted sale. The question that has caused som e controversy is:

Whether a sale should be t reated as com pleted sale under Muslim law or under the

Transfer of Property Act?

I n Begum v. Muham m ad25 , a full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that if the

sale is com plete in the Muslim law sense, then the r ight of pre- em pt ion will

arise. I n this case, Bannerji, J. expressed the opinion that it arises only when the

sale is com plete in the Transfer of Property Act sense. I n Jadulal v. Janki Koer

26 , the Calcutta High Court pronounced the test of intention of parties. I n other

words, the sale will be deem ed to be com plete when parties intended it to be com

pleted. This test

was adopted in Budhai v. Sanaullah27 , Kheyali v. Mullick 28 , and Sitaram v. Sayed

Sirajul29 . The decision in Sitaram 's case was affirm ed by the Privy Council30 .

The Suprem e Court has resolved the controversy by holding that in those cases,

where the Transfer of Property Act applies, the sale will com plete in accordance

with the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, and Muslim law or any

other personal law cannot override the provisions of Act 31 . I t m ay be noted that

the Muslim law of sale has been superseded by the Transfer of Property Act.

I t has been held in som e cases that the court should look into the real nature of t

ransaction. A deed which is called gift ( sankalp), if it is in fact a sale, then the r

ight of pre- em pt ion will arise. Sim ilarly, the r ight of pre- em pt ion will be

available in respect of an ostensible usufructuary m ortgage which is in fact a

sale.

CON FLI CTS OF LAW

Religion of Buyer, Seller And Pre- Em pt or :

Where the parties to a t ransaction which gives r ise to a case of pre- em pt ion are

governed by different personal laws, it is necessary to lay down the principles

upon which the court would act. I n I ndia all religions are t reated with equality

and therefore in this branch of the law of principle of reciprocity should be

logically applied. Hence, on general principles it would be unfair to apply the law

of pre- em pt ion and to create r ights in favour of persons who would not be

subject to corresponding obligations.

The seller and the pre- em ptor m ust necessarily be Muslim . The vendor should be

a Muslim ; for there is no reason why the Muslim law of pre- em pt ion should be

applied to a vendor who is a non- Muslim . The pre- em ptor should also be a

Muslim ; the reason being that a Muslim if he subsequently wishes to sell the

property he will be obliged to offer it to his Muslim neighbour's or co- owners. I

f, however the r ight of pre- em pt ion is recognized in favour of non- Muslim , he

m ay take advantage of it as a pre- em ptor; but would not be subject to a sim ilar

obligation.

As regards the purchaser, there is a conflict of opinion. According to Allahabad and

Patna decisions the purchaser need not be a Muslim ; while according to Calcutta

and Bom bay view the purchaser should also be a Muslim .

As between Sunnis and Shias, if a Shia sues a Sunni for pre- em pt ion the Shia law

which is the narrower law will be applied; thus a neighbor being a Shia will have

no r ight to pre- em pt from a Sunni vendor. A Hyderabad case illust rates the

principles to be followed in determ ining suits where one of the parties is a Sunni

and the other a Shia. 32 One Abdur Rahm an ( Hanafi) sold a house to Pasha

Begum ( also Hanafi). There upon Syed Shabber Hasan ( Twelver Shia) filed a suit

for pre- em pt ion. The question arose whether the Hanafi or the I thna Ashari law

was to apply. The two questions referred to the Full Bench were form ulated as

follows :

(1) Whether all suits of pre- em pt ion are to be decided according to the

rules of Hanafi law irrespective of the fact that the parties belong to

different persuasions?

(2) ) I n case it is held that the personal law of other sects has the force of

law then by what law suit would be governed if the person claim ing is a

Shiite and a Sunnite or vice versa.

The bench consisted of five j udges. The m ajority held that the law of pre- em pt

ion in Hyderabad is neither statutory nor custom ary, nor territorial, nor yet " the

com m on law." The t rue principle was that Hindu and Muslim laws were applied

as personal laws to Hindus and Muslim s, respectively. The law of pre- em pt ion has

been declared to be a personal law by the Suprem e Court, and if the parties are

Muslim no question arises and the Muslim law will apply.

As the personal law of each party would apply, what happens if the pre- em ptor is

of the Shia school and the vendor of the Sunni faith? The following schem e was

adopted :

(a) ) I f both the parties belong to one and the sam e school, the rules of that

particular school will apply.

(b) ) I f the vendor is a Shia and the pre- em ptor a Sunni then as the

Shia law does not recognize the r ight of pre- em pt ion on the ground of

vicinage, applying the principle of reciprocity, the pre- em ptor does not

succeed.

(c) ) em ptor m ust fail

I t will be recalled that this reasoning is the one put forward by Mahm ood J. in

the leading case of Govind Dayal v. I nayatullah33, and the m ajority cited it with

approval and adopted the principle of reciprocity as being in consonance with j

ustice and equity.

N ECESSARY FORMALI TI ES

According to the Hedaya 't he r ight of shufa is but a feeble r ight as it is disseizing

another of his property m erely in order to prevent apprehended inconveniences.

For this reason the law considers certain form alit ies as im perative.

Three dem ands

No person is entitled to pre- em pt unless he takes the proper steps at the proper t im

e and conform s st r ict ly to the necessary form alit ies. These form alit ies or cerem

onies are known as the 'Three Dem ands'.

The First Dem and is taleb- e- m uwasabat. The pre- em ptor m ust assert his claim im

m ediately on hearing of the sale, but not before. Witnesses are not necessary, as in

the second dem and; nor in

is any particular form essential. 'I have dem anded or do dem and pre- em pt ion' is

enough. 34The courts enforce this form alit y strict ly; and any unreasonable delay

will be constructed as an election not to pre- em pt. A delay of twelve hours was in

one case considered too long; the principle is that the law requires extrem e prom

ptness and any laxity will be fatal to the pre- em ptor's claim .

The Second Dem and is talab- e- ishhad. The pre- em ptor m ust, with the least

practicable delay, m ake a second dem and. He m ust ( i) refer to his first dem and;

35 ( ii) do so in the presence of two witnesses; and ( iii) do so in the presence of

either the vendor ( if he is in possession) or the purchaser, or on the prem ises. This

is also known as talab- e- taqrir, the dem and of confirm at ion.

A com m on form of the dem and is: the pre- em ptor says, 'such a person has bought

such a house of which I am the pre- em ptor ( shafi). I have already claim ed m y

privilege of pre- em pt ion and now I again claim it : be yet witness thereof. The

property m ust be clearly specified by the pre- em ptor. I f the pre- em ptor is at a

distance and cannot be personally present, the second dem and m ay be m ade by

an agent, or even by a let ter. An om ission by the agent will bind the pre- em ptor.

Tendor of the price is not necessary, provided that he offers to pay the agreed price

and if that price appears to be fict it ious then such price as the court fixes. I f

there are several purchasers, the dem and m ust be m ade to all of them unless it

is m ade on the prem ises or in the presence of the vendor. I f however, the dem

and is m ade to som e only of the purchasers, the pre- em ptor can claim his r ights

as against these purchasers only and not as against the others.

Som et im es, the first two dem ands m ay be com bined. I f at the t im e of the

First Dem and the pre- em ptor has an opportunity of invoking witness in the

presence of the vendor or purchaser or on the prem ises to attest the First Dem and

and witness are actually present to testify to this form ality, the requirem ents of

both dem ands are satisfied. This, however, is the only case where the first two

dem ands can be com bined lawfully.

The Third Dem and is not really a dem and but taking legal action and is not

always necessary; it is only when his claim is not conceded that the pre- em ptor

enforces his r ight y bringing a suit. Such a action is called talab- e- khusum at ( the

dem and of possession, or the dem and where there is a dispute). The suit m ust be

brought within one year of the purchaser taking possession of the property if it is

corporal; or within one year of the registration of the instrum ent of sale if

incorporeal. 36

RI GHT W HEN LOST

The r ight of pre- em pt ion m ay be lost by acquiescence, death or release.

ACQUI ESCEN CE OR W AVI ER

The m ost ordinary form of acquiescence is to om it to take the necessary form alit ies. S

sells land to

B. P, who has the r ight to pre- em pt, on receiving inform ation of the sale om it s,

without sufficient cause, to claim his r ight im m ediately; or m akes an offer of

the house to B; or agrees to cultivate the land with B. in each of these cases P will

be deem ed to have acquiesced in the sale and to have lost his r ight to pre- em pt.

DEATH

The r ight to pre- em pt is extinguished if the pre- em ptor dies after the first two

dem ands but before filling a suit. The r ight is extinguished if death occurs during

the pendency of a suit, and the action cannot be continued by his legal

representatives. 37 Under I thna Ashari and the Shafei laws the r ight descends to

the heirs proportionately.

RELEASE

The r ight m ay be destroyed if there is a release for consideration to be paid to the

pre- em ptor; the r ight, however, is not lost if there has been a refusal on the part

of the pre- em ptor to buy before the actual sale, nor by an unwillingness to m ake

an offer to purchase the property after notice that the property was for sale.

OBJECT OF PRE- EMPTI ON

I n the words of Mulla," The r ight of shufaa or pre- em pt ion is a r ight

which the owner of an im m oveable property possesses to acquire by purchase

another im m oveable property which has been sold to another person". The

foundation of the r ight of pre- em pt ion is the hum an desire to avoid the

inconvenience and disturbance which is likely to be caused by the introduction

of a st ranger into the land. The Muslim law of pre- em pt ion is to be looked at the

light of the Muslim law of succession. Under Muslim law, death of a person results

in the division of his property into fractions. I f any heir is allowed to dispose of

his share without offering it to other co- heirs, then it is likely to lead to the int

roduction of strangers into a part of the estate with resultant difficult ies and

inconveniences. I n view of this, the law of pre- em pt ion im poses a lim it ation or

disability upon the ownership of property to the extent that it restricts the

owner's unfettered r ight of t ransfer of property and com pels him to sell it to his

co- heir or neighbor, as the case m ay be. The person, who is a co- sharer in the

property, or owes property in the vicinity, gets an advantage corresponding to the

burden with which the owner of the property is saddled, even though it does not

am ount to an actual interest in the property sold. I t is now an established view

that the r ight of pre- em pt ion is not a m ere r ight to re- purchase; it is akin to

legal servitude running with the land. The r ight exists in the owner of the pre- em

pt ion tenem ent for the t im e being which entitled him to have an offer of sale m

ade to him whenever the owner of pre- em pt ional property desires to sell it . I t is

a r ight of substitution entitling the pre- em ptor, by reason of a legal incident to

which the sale it self was subject, to stand in the shoes of the vendee in respect of

all the r ights and obligations arising from

the sale under which he has derived his t it le. I t is, in effect, as if in a sale- deed

the vendee's nam e was rubbed out and the pre- em ptor's nam e substituted.38 Or,

in the words of Mahm ood J."....... a r ight, which the owner of certain im m

oveable property possesses, as such, for the quiet enjoym ent of that im m oveable

property, to obtain, in substitution for the buyer, proprietary possession of certain

other im m oveable property, not his own, on such term s as those on which

such lat ter im m oveable property, is sold to another person". Mukerj ee, J. very

aptly says that the crux of the whole thing is that the benefit as well as the burden

of the r ight of pre- em pt ion runs with the land and can be enforced by or against

the owner of the land for the t im e being although the r ight of pre- em pt ion

does not am ount to an interest in the land it self. The law of pre- em pt ion

creates a r ight which attaches to the property and on that footing only it can be

enforced against the purchaser. 39 Thus, the r ight of pre- em pt ion in that sense is

r ight in rem , it s exercise, from the t im e it arise up to the t im e of the decree, is

restricted as a personal r ight.

I t is a r ight which is neither heritable nor t ransferable. 40 I n this context, the

following passage in the Hedaya is also instructive: " The r ight of shufaa is but a

feeble r ight, as it is the disseizing another of his property m erely in order to

prevent apprehended inconvenience". The r ight of pre- em pt ion is a very weak r

ight and can be defeated by a defendant by all lawful m eans. 41

I n I ndira Bai v. Nandkishore,42 the Suprem e Court observed that the r ight of

pre- em pt ion is a weak r ight and it can be defeated by estoppels. Even in

Muslim law, which is the genesis of this r ight, as it was unknown to Hindu Law

and was brought in the wake of Moham m edan Rule, it is settled that the r ight of

pre- em pt ion is lost by estoppel and acquiescence. Estoppel is a rule of equity

flowing out of fairness st r iking on behavior efficient in good faith. I t operates as

a check on spurious conduct by preventing the inducer from taking advantage and

assailing forfeiture already accom plished. I t is invoked and applied to aid the law

in adm inistration of j ustice. But for it great m any injustices m ay have been

perpetrated.

CON CLUSI ON

From the subm ission given in the article it is clear what sort of a r ight of pre- em

pt ion is. I t is of an extrem e im portance which one has got from law and one's

own culture. Thought there are m any controversies regarding who can opt for

such r ight, if the sect of a person according to Muslim law is different, and when

the r ight is lost, st ill it plays an im portant role as one can use this r ight can an

enjoy sole possession of the entire property without any interference from any one.

I n this project I have dealt in dept detail of r ight of pre- em pt ion regarding when

does the r ight arises, who can claim this r ight, when the r ight is lost, what are

the form alit ies. Though after the decisions of Suprem e Court the law is settled

now and the religion or the sect is no barrier now. The form alit ies related to

this r ight are also very sim ple in nature whereby one can approach the vendor

alone or with a witness and if the first two dem ands are rejected than one m ay

knock the

doors of the Courts.

At last we can see that the object of his r ight is j ust that, one can enjoy his r ight

over the entire property without any disturbances but his intention should be a fair

one in this regard.

________________

_________

* Abhishek Agrawal I I year Student, Hidayatullah national Law University, Raipur.

1. AI R ( 1914) 42 I A 10.

2. ( 1885) 7 All 775.

3. I brahim Saib v. Muni Mir, ( 1870) MHCR 26.

4. Sayeeduddin Ahm ed v. I unus Mia, PLD 1960 Dacca 416.

5. Supra Note. 2

6. Avadh Behari v. Gaj adar, AI R 1954 SC 417.

7. Jagannath v. I nderpal, AI R 1935 ALL 236.

8. Supra Note 6.

9. Digam ber Singh v. Ahm ed, ( 1915) 37 ALL 129.

10. Bhan Ram v. Baij Nath AI R 1962 SC1976; Sant Ram v. Labh Singh, AI R 1965 SC

314.

11. Supra Note 6.

12. AI R 1958 SC 838. ( Dealing with the Punj ab Pre- em pt ion Act, 1913) .

13. Bibi Saleha v. Hazi Am iruddin, AI R 1929 Patna 214.

14. Karim v. Priya Lal, AI R 1943 Bom bay 83.

15. Aziz v. Nazir, AI R 1927 All 504.

16. AI R 1963 Raj 195.

17. Girraj Kum ar v. I rafan Ali, AI R 1932 All 688.

18. Dhanraj v. Ram eshwar, AI R 1924 All 227.

19. I bid.

20. Munilala v. Bishwanath, AI R 1968 SC 450.

21. Naj m - Un- Nissa v. Aj aib Ali, ( 1900)

22. All 342. 22 ( 1916) 37 All 533.

23. AI R 1923 All 57.

24. AI R 1968 SC 450.

25. ( 1894) 16 All 344.

26. ( 1908) 35 Cal 575.

27. ( 1914) 41 Cal 943.

28. ( 1916) 34 I C 210.

29. ( 1917) 41 Bom 636.

30. ( 1921) 44 Bom 1056 ( PC) .

31. Radhakrishan v. Sridhar, AI R 1960 SC 1368.

32. Pasha Begum v. Syed Shabber Hasan, AI R 1956 Hyd 1.

33. Supra Note 2.

34. C. S. Tiwati v. R. P.Dubey ( 1949) 28 Pat 861.

35. I bid.

36. See Article 10, Lim itat ion Act 1963.

37. Mohd. I sm ail v. Abdul Rashid AI R 1956 All 1.

38. AI R 1980 Raj 116.

39. AI R 1954 SC 417 at pg 422.

40. Supra Note. 37

41. Supra Note. 38

42. AI R 1991 SC 1055.